The Shop Vs. Rattan Lal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
a) in the instant case, it was debated on whether the awarding of time for paying balance fee while passing the decree was proper - the trial court, while passing the decree, had given the direction to pay proper court fee on the balance amount decreed - the said order was challenged and contention was raised that the provisions of court fees act and the civil procedure code, 1908, was mandatory -further, it was also contended that entertaining the suit in a matter related to deficient court fee was held to be not tenable - it was ruled that the order of the trial court was justified and the documents being finding of fact, the court would not interfere with the orderb) the case focused on the claim towards the costs of notice along with interest and cost -it was ruled that the plaintiff who had incurred expense on account of recovery of his claim, would be entitled to claim - further, he would not be deprived of legitimate expense in that behalf - labour & services disability pension: [vikramajit sen, sanjiv khanna & s.l.bhayana,jj] army act (46 of 1950), section 192 & pension regulations for the army (1961), regulation. 173 claimant was on casual leave sustained injury which contributed to invalidation for military service claim for disability pension held, to claim disability pension by military personnel it requires to be established that the injury or fatality suffered by the concerned claimant bears a causal connection with military service. secondly, if this obligation exists so far as discharge from the armed force on the opinion of a medical board the obligation and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned. thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the concerned personnel was on causal or annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established. - in the case inhand the plaintiff had paid the requisite court fee onthe amount claimed by him and he had also undertaken topay the court fee on the amount of second claim becauseof the contingency that the defendant could have handedover st1 form and if he failed to do so the amounttowards the sales tax was payable. the judgment of the trialcourt and the first appellate court are based on soundreasoning and proper appreciation of the matter and thefinding are correct in law as well as on facts.r.c. jain, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner. thisappeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.1997passed by the learned trial court and that of theadditional district judge, dated 24.7.2001, by which asuit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sumof rs.8,703.28 and delivery of st1 forms for a value ofrs.13,811.97 or in the alternative to the st1 forms forthe amount of sales tax at the rate of 7% was decreed.the petitioner/defendant contested the suit on a varietyof grounds fully taken note by both the courts below andfound no merits in the defense put forth on behalf of thedefendant.2. the impugned order is sought to be assailedmainly on the ground that the judgments of the courtsmainly on the ground that the judgments of the courtsbelow are legally untenable and several substantivequestions of law as detailed in the memorandum of appealarise for consideration in this appeal. one suchquestion raised about the power and jurisdiction of thetrial court in permitting the plaintiff/respondent tomaintain the present suit by exempting the plaintiff frompaying the court fee on the second claim about handingover the st1 form or in the alternative for paying theamount at the rate of 7% on the amount of the bills.3. according to the learned counsel for theappellant the provisions of the court fee act and thecivil procedure code are mandatory and the trial courtwas not justified in entertaining the suit/plaint, oncethe court fee paid was insufficient/deficient. insupport of her contentions the learned counsel for theappellant has placed reliance upon the division benchjudgment of this court in the case of sahara indiaairlines ltd. vs . r.a.singh : 1997(43)drj217 . on the facts of the said case, the court heldthat the provisions of law contained in section 4 of feesact and under order 6 rule 11 (c) cpc are couched inlanguage which shows that the payment of court feesprescribed in the first or second schedule of the act ismandatory before a plaint or other documents orinstruments referred to in the section can be proceededwith. the facts and circumstances of the above statedcase are distinguishable as the court granted blanketexemption to the plaintiff to file suit without paymentof court fee with the stipulation that the court feecould be paid once the suit was decreed. in the case inhand the plaintiff had paid the requisite court fee onthe amount claimed by him and he had also undertaken topay the court fee on the amount of second claim becauseof the contingency that the defendant could have handedover st1 form and if he failed to do so the amounttowards the sales tax was payable. the trial court whilepassing the decree has directed the plaintiff to payproper court fee on the balance amount so decreed in thatbehalf within one month and that seems to be apermissible course. in my view no fault can be foundwith the order on this count. the contention of thelearned counsel for the appellant that the amount ofdeficient the court fee was not paid within thestipulated period of one month and the court extended thetime to the appellant and on that account also thedefendant has suffered has no merits.4. it was next contended that the learned trialcourt and the appellate court has erred in relying andacting upon certain documents which have not been provedin accordance with law. on the face of the materialavailable on record, this contention cannot be upheld.in any case this is a pure finding on fact which thiscourt while sitting in second appeal is not expected tolook into. submission has also been made that certainclaims towards the costs of notice etc. have beenallowed along with interest and cost which is quiteunusual and is not in accordance with prevalent practice.it may do so but a plaintiff who incurs expenditure inconnection with the recovery of his claim is entitled toclaim the said expenses and should not be deprived of thelegitimate expenses in that behalf.5. having considered the matter in its entirety,this court is of the view that no substantial question oflaw has been raised in this appeal which requiresconsideration by this court. the judgment of the trialcourt and the first appellate court are based on soundreasoning and proper appreciation of the matter and thefinding are correct in law as well as on facts. nointerference is called for.6. dismissed.